MMP for Canada



What is MMP?

MMP is stands for Mixed Member Proportional. It is an electoral system that is a hybrid of the first-past-the-post and proportional representation systems. Some people refer to it as AMS (Additional Member System). Wikipedia has a good description of MMP. The Electoral Reform Society of the UK has an excellent one.


Why would it be good for Canada?

Your vote counts regardless of where you live. Under the current system (first-past-the-post) in many places your vote doesn't count or you're forced to vote strategically.

Many areas of our country are what the Electoral Reform Group calls 'electoral deserts.' These are places where a party has no hope of winning a seat despite having a significant number of supporters. If you're in a riding like Medicine Hat and want to vote Liberal or Davenport or Rimouski-Témiscouata and want to vote Conservative you might as well stay home 'cause your favourite party has no hope of getting elected.


Doesn't proportional representation lead to unstable governments?

MMP systems largely avoid the problems associated with many proportional representation systems. Parties sitting in parliament are required to get 5% of the vote or some number of directly elected members. The 5% rule effectively limits the number of parties, but ensures that smaller parties can play an effective role and have an impact. Countries with MMP systems (eg. Germany and New Zealand) have had strong stable governments.


What is wrong with our first past the post system?

The good example of what can happen is the election result of 1926 in Manitoba.

That year the distribution of the popular vote was:
  • Conservatives 42.2%
  • Labour Progressives 19.5%
  • Liberals 18.4%
  • Progressives 11.2%
  • Labour 8.7%

  • The seat distribution was:
  • Conservatives 0
  • Labour Progressives 7
  • Liberals 4
  • Progressives 4
  • Labour 2

  • Does that look like representation?

    Groups with differing interests are forced to align and strike backroom deals. This is bad because it leads to less transparency in the political process.


    What about more recent results?

    A party takes 60% of the popular vote and wins 100% of the seats - New Brunswick election of 1987.
    A party has more of the popular vote than another but loses - Quebec election of 1998, BC election of 1996.
    A majority in parliament is held with less than 38% of the popular vote - Ontario election of 1990.


    If this is such a good idea why hasn't the government taken action?

    The parties that can change the system fear losing influence and power. Proportional systems usually result in coalition governments.


    Where is more information?

    Electoral Reform (CBC Analysis & Commentary)
    Election Reform In Canada
    Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform


    Back
    Disclaimer: This page does not represent the University of Toronto in any way, shape or form.
    Last modified: June 8, 2004.